Envelopment technique and topographic overlays in bite mark analysis

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Dec 1, 2015
https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-1475.172427
Download
pdf
Statistic

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...
Volume 7, Issue 3, September-December 2015

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Parimala Djeapragassam
Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Mahatma Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Dental Sciences, Pondicherry
Mariappan Daniel
Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Mahatma Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Dental Sciences, Pondicherry
Subramanian Srinivasan
Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Mahatma Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Dental Sciences, Pondicherry
Koliyan Ramadoss
Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Mahatma Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Dental Sciences, Pondicherry
Vannathan Jimsha
Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Mahatma Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Dental Sciences, Pondicherry

Abstract

Aims and Objectives: The aims and objectives of our study were to compare four sequential overlays generated using the envelopment technique and to evaluate inter- and intraoperator reliability of the overlays obtained by the envelopment technique. Materials and Methods: Dental stone models were prepared from impressions made from healthy individuals; photographs were taken and computer-assisted overlays were generated. The models were then enveloped in a different-color dental stone. After this, four sequential cuts were made at a thickness of 1mm each. Each sectional cut was photographed and overlays were generated. Thus, 125 overlays were generated and compared. Results: The scoring was done based on matching accuracy and the data were analyzed. The Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used to compare four sequential overlays and Spearman′s rank correlation tests were used to evaluate the inter- and intraoperator reliability of the overlays obtained by the envelopment technique. Conclusion: Through our study, we conclude that the third and fourth cuts were the best among the four cuts and inter- and intraoperator reliability were found to be statistically significant at 5% level that is 95% confidence interval (P < 0.05).

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Parimala Djeapragassam, Mariappan Daniel, Subramanian Srinivasan, Koliyan Ramadoss, & Vannathan Jimsha. (2015). Envelopment technique and topographic overlays in bite mark analysis. Journal of Forensic Dental Sciences, 7(3), 184–188. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-1475.172427
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. American Board of Forensic Odontology (2013) Diplomates Reference Manual. Available from: www.abfo.org/wp./ ABFO‑Reference‑Manual‑1‑22‑2013‑revision.pdf. [Last accessed on 2013 Dec 15].
  2. Kaur S, Krishan K, Chatterjee PM, Kanchan T. Analysis and identification of bite marks in forensic casework.Oral Health Dent Manag2013;12:127‑31.
  3. DKWhittaker, DGMacDonald. AColour Atlas of Forensic Dentistry. London: Wolfe Publishing Ltd; 1989. p. 120‑3.
  4. Kouble RF, Craig GT. A comparison between direct and indirect methods available for human bite mark analysis. J Forensic Sci 2004;49:111‑8.
  5. DorionRB. BitemarkEvidence, 1sted. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2005.p. 423‑451.
  6. Maloth S, Ganapathy KS. Comparison between five commonly used two‑dimensional methods of human bite mark overlay production from dental study casts. Indian J Dent Res 2011;22:493.
  7. Sweet D, Bowers CM. Accuracy of bite mark overlays: Acomparison of five common methods to produce exemplars from a suspect’s dentition. J Forensic Sci 1998;43:362‑7.
  8. NaruAS, DykesE. The use of a digital imaging technique to aid bite mark analysis. Sci Justice1996;36:47‑50.
  9. McNamee AH, Sweet D, Pretty I. A comparative reliability analysis of computer‑generated bite mark overlays. J Forensic Sci 2005;50:400‑5.
  10. Stavrianos C, Vasiliadis L, Emmanouil J, Papadopoulos C. In vivo evaluation of the accuracy of twomethods for the bite markanalysis in food stuff. Res JMedSci 2011;5:25‑31.
  11. Sweet D, Parhar M, Wood RE. Computer‑based production of bite mark comparison overlays. J Forensic Sci 1998;43:1050‑5.
  12. Dailey JC. The topographic mapping of teeth for overlay production in bite mark analysis. Proceedings of the American Academy of forensic Sciences.Atlanta 2002:237.
  13. MetcalfRD. Yet another method for marking incisal edges of teeth for bitemark analysis. J Forensic Sci 2008;53:426‑9.
  14. Kasie Nam, Edwin T. Parks, G. Eckert. Computerized incisal edge tracing using different dental stone colors. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. Atlanta 2002:230‑1.
  15. Pretty IA. Forensic dentistry: 2. Bitemarksand bite injuries. Dent Update 2008;35:48‑50, 53‑4, 57‑8.
  16. Page M, Taylor J, Blenkin M. Reality bites‑‑A ten‑year retrospective analysis of bitemark casework in Australia. Forensic SciInt 2012;216:82‑7.
  17. Pretty IA, Sweet D. A paradigm shift in the analysis ofbitemarks. Forensic SciInt 2010;201:38‑44.
  18. Rai B, Anand SC, Madan M, Dhattarwal SK. Bite marks: A new identification technique. IJFS 2006;2 (1).
  19. Rajshekar M, Kruger E, Tennant M. Bite‑marks: Understanding the role of general practitioners in forensic identification. JInt Oral Health 2012;4:1‑8